How do YOU see the board?

[Big Phil]

I'd forgotten about that thread; it was interesting to see exactly who replied and what they said that caused Pick to leave the board. No wonder it's a year later and we're back in same spot...

Oh, and ray245 - I'm amazed that guy is still around given the treatment he's been receiving for so many years.

[ray245]

I'd forgotten about that thread; it was interesting to see exactly who replied and what they said that caused Pick to leave the board. No wonder it's a year later and we're back in same spot...

Oh, and ray245 - I'm amazed that guy is still around given the treatment he's been receiving for so many years.

Please, when you have a parent that scoulded you in the exact same manner people here likes to do by flaming and the fact that your mom voice can be heard 10 floors below and above, you can tolerate flaming to a certain extend. Other than that, I also have a mom who love to embrass me as a form of punishment, such as scoulding me loudly in front of the public.


Then there is my experience as a military cadet where I got screamed and shouted on a weekly basis.

However, this does not mean I enjoy people flaming me.

[Vendetta]

I'd like to see PST and PSW fold into OSF as subforums and rename OSF to Science Fiction. Take down ST vs. SW and archive it for posterity while opening up a subforum in OSF titled "Sci-Fi Versus".

Make Fantasy strictly a discussion forum while a subforum for fantasy versus?

I don't even think PSW/PST are active enough to warrant subforums of SF. They have maybe half a page of threads that have been commented on in the last month, and rolling them all up into one big forum for Science Fiction wouldn't cause them to swamp discussion of other subjects. Sure, they'll spike for a while when the new movies/series come out, but that tends to happen with every major release of anything.

Also, just have a single Versus board for fiction (SF, Fantasy, historical what if's, etc.) with the current SW vs. ST content archived in it or a suforum of it.

[Hotfoot]

Personally, I think locking the STvSW and PST and PSW forums, moving them to public archives, and then letting OSF take over would be just fine. Both ST and SW are stagnant at the moment, and the only thing that's bound to really change that is a new ST show or Lucas deciding he wants to make Episodes 7-9. Neither are likely to happen at the moment, so why bother?

[Aaron]

I feel that the board is a pale shadow of itself. When I signed up flames without an argument were a no/no and it seems that the downfall started with the formation of the senate. It was my impression that it was set up to be an advisory body for Mike and the admins and admission was a sign that you had distinguished yourself as a good debater.

That's all well and good. However when infighting starts among what is effectively a body superior to the normal users, that's going to trickle down to the average Joe user. Add into that a variety of folks (mods, senators and average users) with less than happy personal circumstances and long standing grudges against members, you've got a recipe for disaster.

It's made worse by the absence of mods (I do understand that people have lives and move on) and I do recall a senate thread to nominate new ones. What became of that I'm not too sure. But if new ones are required, I will volunteer. I sit here all day anyways, I may as well try and help out a place I consider to be a second home.

But intimidated? As Coffee pointed out, the worst that can happen is that you get called a few names for breaking the rules (provided you learn). Let's be honest, the mods are actually quite lenient. What is dishearting is the feeling that you’re going to be dog piled by everyone that happens to pass by the thread.

[Darth Fanboy]

Personally, I think locking the STvSW and PST and PSW forums, moving them to public archives, and then letting OSF take over would be just fine. Both ST and SW are stagnant at the moment, and the only thing that's bound to really change that is a new ST show or Lucas deciding he wants to make Episodes 7-9. Neither are likely to happen at the moment, so why bother?

STvsSW I don't would be much of a problem, but the PST and PSW forums should stay open, Even though the EU is a mixed bag of gold and crap there is new Star Wars material coming out quite often, and if this new movie pans out then there will be plenty of Trek Material. In fact, Chuck's Opinionated Episode Guides have me checking PST quite often.

My plan, were I to have any influence, would be the possibly unpopular idea of opening up the Member's only Transformers Forum into its own public one, then MAYBE creating a subforum for 40K only, because things from that topic end up in both OSF and G&C.

As for the question posed by the thread title? I wish there was a way for Mike and the Admins to easily double or triple the size of the mod staff and get rid of the senate. There are good users that would make really good mods and are active enough to police forums. It is no knock against the current mod staff but the forum is over 5 years old and the old moderator staff have either more important priorities, aren't able to moderate at the moment, and there is always the possibility that some of the inactive mods just aren't interested in the job anymore.

I don't remember how many mods there were back in 2002, but I know there weren't 3,000+ users, and I doubt that the size of the staff has increased at the same rate. I know it's not simple to implement, but it would be my ideal solution.

[Coyote]

What is dishearting is the feeling that you’re going to be dog piled by everyone that happens to pass by the thread.

Yeah, there's been many times I just didn't want to participate in topics because I just didn't want to put up with the inevitable arrival of screeching, easily-inflamed egos with axes to grind. I kinda started pre-censoring in some respects-- "Is this topic likely to go south? Do I really want to get dragged into something with the nitpicking, rules-lawyering hotheads I know are going to make an appearance? [sigh] --no, not worth the trouble."

[Coyote]

I think the Senate is a good idea, but I think it's duties may need to be more clearly delineated. It is not really a particularly important body, really, it is intended to advise, contemplate changes, and suggest things-- to me, that is a recipe for very laid-back discussion.

I think part of the problem with the Senate being seen as "important" comes not only from, perhaps, a few Senators who feel that way (although if cornered and asked to name names, I couldn't think of anyone who threw their weight around because they were Senators... people who throw their weight around probably did that before, as well).

One of the things that may have happened was that people who threw their weight around but were technically "correct" in their arguments were granted some status-- somewhere, modes of civilised behavior and setting an example were forgotten and only the ability to flame well and flame often became the more important criteria.

But I think there are also some regular denizens who --subconsciously, without really realizing it, perhaps-- tend to put the Senators in that light. Doing infrequent nominations and then "elevating" someone to the title adds subtle reinforcement that being a Senator is a "reward", either for being "cool" or well-liked, or being a good debater, or something having to do with oral sex in the stockroom. But really, it becomes seen as a goal, a position to attain, and until you're in that position, you're not really a full member. This is silly. It gives the board not a taste of democracy, but more like the Mafia, where you have to become a "made man" by one of the Dons or Capos or something.

I don't think the Senate encourages that notion, but I think that, like it or not (or justified or not) that is the impression that has managed to settle in the minds of some.

[Darth Fanboy]

But I think there are also some regular denizens who --subconsciously, without really realizing it, perhaps-- tend to put the Senators in that light. Doing infrequent nominations and then "elevating" someone to the title adds subtle reinforcement that being a Senator is a "reward", either for being "cool" or well-liked, or being a good debater, or something having to do with oral sex in the stockroom. But really, it becomes seen as a goal, a position to attain, and until you're in that position, you're not really a full member. This is silly. It gives the board not a taste of democracy, but more like the Mafia, where you have to become a "made man" by one of the Dons or Capos or something.

I don't think the Senate encourages that notion, but I think that, like it or not (or justified or not) that is the impression that has managed to settle in the minds of some.

How is being made a Senator NOT a reward? Senators get more perks and privileges that for many users are quite desirable. And the bar next to a Senator's avatar is a clear sign of prestige. This is the immediate impression that the Senate gave off as soon as it was formed, now that they get unlimited editing privileges it becomes an even more desirable title to attain. The very existence of a Senate of board members inherently encourages the notion, even if none of the Senators themselves does so actively.

At first I thought the Senate was basically just going to be a body of users selected mostly for voting on policies debated on by admins and moderators, because the old ban poll votes and other similar polls became very unwieldly. This way the people voting could at be trusted to make a rational decision. Certainly something far less in scale than the current bureaucracy.

[Coyote]

How is being made a Senator NOT a reward? Senators get more perks and privileges that for many users are quite desirable. And the bar next to a Senator's avatar is a clear sign of prestige. This is the immediate impression that the Senate gave off as soon as it was formed, now that they get unlimited editing privileges it becomes an even more desirable title to attain. The very existence of a Senate of board members inherently encourages the notion, even if none of the Senators themselves does so actively.

"Yes, but..." I saw it not as a promotion upward, but a promotion sideways. The perks (basically, editing and the chance to help form board policy; note the bars aren't there any more) were to offset the constant calls to vote and having to be present to weigh in on issues. But then that's how I see these sorts of things-- I don't see it as "power" so much as "rewards for doing extra crap".

But I can't help but wonder if the prestige items that come with being a Senator are becoming the goal, rather than the responsibilities. Aw, hell, scratch that-- I'm sure that is how it is seen.

At first I thought the Senate was basically just going to be a body of users selected mostly for voting on policies debated on by admins and moderators, because the old ban poll votes and other similar polls became very unwieldly. This way the people voting could at be trusted to make a rational decision. Certainly something far less in scale than the current bureaucracy.

And that is how it is supposed to be-- taking responsible for handling miscreats in a way that promotes transparency, and setting the example in debates, and being mature enough to make decisions about how the board is going to be run. The reason "longevity" comes into it is because, if a person sticks around here long enough, they clearly have a stake in how things are done here and have contributed something, at some point, even if small. It's "institutional memory", which is both blessing and curse...

I mean, bear in mind that many newbies and semi-newbies may be nice enough people, but Ray245, nice guy he may be, would clearly run the board very, very differently-- as would other newbies I can think off the top of my head, like Bilbo, for example. The Senate is formed by people who have seen some of the bullshit and triumphs the board went through in the past, and know how things were handled so old mistakes don't have to get re-made.

Nanny-rules aside, I have always thought that "setting the example in debates" is more than just nuts-and-bolts being right and arguing from that position, but being able to do so without being on obtuse arrogant ass. In other words, conducting oneself in a manner of maturity and, dare I say, style. But that has gotten lost, I think, in the clutter of just "being right".

Actually, I think one of my better qualities is that (in my opinion), I can lose with grace. I don't feel the need to huff & puff and make netnerd threats. I don't get my sense of self-worth wrapped up in internet arguments (although I admit I can, at times, get a little too wrapped up on some hot-key topics. I am, after all, one of th ereasons why we have an IvP moratorium ). I try to learn not to be such a dick by maintaining cool and yet keeping engaged. I think I did well in the gun control thread recently; formely a bit of a temperature-riser for me.

If this were Fight Club, I'd also assign homework: pick a fight, and lose. But I'd add, lose with dignity.

[CmdrWilkens]

The thing with the Senate is a natural outgrowth of creating the seperate forum and giving it powers to begin with. Just as with the mods, creating that group of users who have an additional amount of authority, who have a sperate forum to disucsss things, and who have an input on policy that will NATURALLY create a perception of diferent classes of board citizenship.

Can anyone here hoenstly say that they didn't (prior to the Senate) see the moderators as comprising a seperate and senior group of users?

Maybe the Senate was structured oddly and certainly there are those who may have (though I like Coyote couldn't think of a name off the top of my head) used the "presitge" of their position to try and win a debate on points BUT I honestly have to say is it any different than the system we had when it was only Mods and Admins? The only difference I can see is that the discussions are now out in the open, where everyone can see (rather than hidden in the mod forum) and the membership of the Senate is much larger than the membership of moderators.

The bureaucracy of the Senate may strike some folks as unneccessarry but I'd like to ask them how they would do it differently? If you don't have rules then the complaint is arbitrary decision making, if you don't have the discussion publicly viewable then you suffer the potential accusation of secret bias or vendetta, if you have policy disucssions open to the entire membership of the board (as with the old ban polls) then there is a very real and present risk of groupthink clouding the judgement process and the bandwagon carrying away toward poor decisions. The Senate, like any legislature, is a neccesarry evil and I'd rather have it well structured than a loose conglomerate based on good will amongst the Senators and "common sense" rules.

Really its two points I'm trying to make:
1) The Senate serve a neccesarry function and pretty much every complaint against the Senate used to be levelled at the mod staff
2) Everybody bitches but not a lot of folks are offering an alternate solution.

[thejester]

1) The Senate serve a neccesarry function and pretty much every complaint against the Senate used to be levelled at the mod staff

A necessary function? Could have fooled me.

2) Everybody bitches but not a lot of folks are offering an alternate solution.

Get rid of it and expand the mod staff.

[Darth Fanboy]

Coyote, I hear you man and I don't think you're part of any problem.

Can anyone here hoenstly say that they didn't (prior to the Senate) see the moderators as comprising a seperate and senior group of users?

But on every Internet BBS on Forum, that's exactly what moderators are.

Maybe the Senate was structured oddly and certainly there are those who may have (though I like Coyote couldn't think of a name off the top of my head) used the "presitge" of their position to try and win a debate on points BUT I honestly have to say is it any different than the system we had when it was only Mods and Admins?

In my opinion yes, because Moderators and Admins have actual authority which is necessary for them to do their job, which I might add is basically unpaid volunteer work. Which I for one highly appreciate.

The only difference I can see is that the discussions are now out in the open, where everyone can see (rather than hidden in the mod forum) and the membership of the Senate is much larger than the membership of moderators.

Then those discussions could be brought out into the open, without the creation of a Senate.

The bureaucracy of the Senate may strike some folks as unneccessarry but I'd like to ask them how they would do it differently? If you don't have rules then the complaint is arbitrary decision making, if you don't have the discussion publicly viewable then you suffer the potential accusation of secret bias or vendetta, if you have policy disucssions open to the entire membership of the board (as with the old ban polls) then there is a very real and present risk of groupthink clouding the judgement process and the bandwagon carrying away toward poor decisions. The Senate, like any legislature, is a neccesarry evil and I'd rather have it well structured than a loose conglomerate based on good will amongst the Senators and "common sense" rules.

I already said how i'd do it differently in my previous post. With the addition of my previous comment about moving specific moderator discussions (not all of them), such as those about banning or certain policy changes, to a more public area.

Really its two points I'm trying to make:
1) The Senate serve a neccesarry function and pretty much every complaint against the Senate used to be levelled at the mod staff

I disagree, the accusations against the moderators were that they were abusing their authority, authority that is necessary to do their job.

[Darth Fanboy]

Some stats about the Senate I've noticed from taking a quick peek at the Senators Usergroup list, a peek prompted by this discussion.

There are 34 members on the list, and of those 34 members on the current list, 26 of them joined in 2002. Of those 26, 18 joined around the board's inception in July of 2002. This is where the "Old Boys Club" mindset begins. Do I think that join dates play a part in how one becomes a Senator? No. But I am not fully convinced that the Senate does not entirely realize that this plays in to how the body is received, especially on a board where approximately 2/3 of the users have fewer than 100 posts.

[CmdrWilkens]

Some stats about the Senate I've noticed from taking a quick peek at the Senators Usergroup list, a peek prompted by this discussion.

There are 34 members on the list, and of those 34 members on the current list, 26 of them joined in 2002. Of those 26, 18 joined around the board's inception in July of 2002. This is where the "Old Boys Club" mindset begins. Do I think that join dates play a part in how one becomes a Senator? No. But I am not fully convinced that the Senate does not entirely realize that this plays in to how the body is received, especially on a board where approximately 2/3 of the users have fewer than 100 posts.

There are a LOT of things that are misleading about looking at that list so let me start at the beginning:

1) The original Senate membership was NOT self selecting so what might be worth looking at is the join date for every member added to the Senate after its inception. In other words the list below represents every member added to the Senate after it was created:

• Mad (Jul 02)
  Sonnenburg (Nov 02)
  Surlethe (Dec 04)
  Gil Hamilton (Jul 02)
  Spyder (Sep 02)
  Simplicus (Jan 06)
  Hotfoot (Oct 02)
  Noble Ire (Apr 05)
  Imperial Overlord (Aug 04)
  Spin Echo (May 06)
  Stas Bush (Feb 03)
  Eleas (Jul 02)
  Ted C (Jul 02)

So that list includes 4 from inception, 3 more from the first year, and 6 who have joined since then. So of the 13 votes for elevation roughly half have gone to members who are rather self evidently not members of the "Old Boys Club." I think that's about as clear an evidence as one could find that despite any perception to the contrary the Senate has been ACTING to include membership from across the spectrum. That said given that the basic criterion for membership is "contributes positively to the board" I think some amount of longevity is to be expected.

2) The next thing that list doesn't show is that the Senate is actually composed of 57 total members counting those who are currently on hiatus or otherwise not listed by me as "active." This means that 44/57 of the members were selected either due to membership on the mod staff or by the mod staff. In other words the VAST majority of the Senate was not voted in but rather slected in by Mike/the Admins/the Mods however they decided it amongst themselves. I hate to be blunt abotu it but it seems ludicrous to claim I am acting as part of an 'Old Boys Club" when I was given Senate Membership, along with many others, by the Mod/Admin staff.


So while I can get that there may be a perception of a old hands network in the Senate I think its the sort of snap judgement where the person holding it has not bothere to look at how the Senate acts and we have acted to include membership both old and new. Moreover I can also say that the "inactive" Senator list (those on hiatus or otherwise not regularly participating) is composed of almost all older posters which means that the actual working membership of the Senate is tilted a bit towards more recent board membership.

[Darth Fanboy]

There are a LOT of things that are misleading about looking at that list so let me start at the beginning:
(snip)

So while I can get that there may be a perception of a old hands network in the Senate I think its the sort of snap judgement where the person holding it has not bothere to look at how the Senate acts and we have acted to include membership both old and new.

Which, if you read my post is exactly what I was talking about.

This is where the "Old Boys Club" mindset begins. Do I think that join dates play a part in how one becomes a Senator? No. But I am not fully convinced that the Senate does not entirely realize that this plays in to how the body is received, especially on a board where approximately 2/3 of the users have fewer than 100 posts.

Extra emphasis on that second line. Of course it is misleading, but my whole point is that there hasn't been much to dispel that myth though, and it's up to the Senate to do that if it wants to be taken seriously.

[Coyote]

I think "perception" is what is important, maybe not really selection. And such things are subjective. From my point of view, I personally see myself as "2nd Generation" because in my view, the "Old Boys Club" is actually the ASVS veterans. In my perception, there is a camaraderie there that is distinct, which I (and many others) were never a part of.

I think it is important for me to point out that I do, indeed, think that the Senate is important and necessary, just maybe not in the way that is is supposed to. I, personally, prefer the transparency in punishments, and think that having an opportunity to debate rules before implementing them is a good thing.

But I'd like to ask some questions about people who are cheesed off at the Senate:
1- Who is being difficult/arrogant/bullying/etc?
2- Were these people problematic after becoming Senators-- or were they always that way, and being Senators had nothing to do with it?
3- Are people sure that their complaints about Senators being arrogant aren't actually personal dislikes, being projected?

One of the reasons why I (and others) wanted to make a House of Commons (actually my original idea was a weekly sticky to post petitions & gripes in OT) is precisely to address some of these problems. If the Senate is being viewed in a negative light, that is indicative of a problem and something needs to be addressed. If there's a legitimate gripe, I think it should be addressed-- but at the same time, if morale is being undermined by a series of specious arguments or personal dislikes, then that, too, needs to be brought out so we can put complaints in a context.

But there can be no progress without feedback. Right now the Senate is perceived as being arrogant and unresponsive. I think it is reasonable to say that this was not the intent of the Senate, so clearly something needs to be cleared up.

So far, it seems universal that "more Mods" is needed; some hands-on types that will be there and be active. What else?

[Big Phil]

I don't know that I'm particularly cheesed off at the Senate. If anything I'm more annoyed at Mike and the mods for allowing a group of people - who are neither mods/admins nor do they have any formal authority - to wield so much power/influence. I'd prefer a return to the old days, when the admins/mods were the only authority (formal or otherwise) on the board.

To use an analogy, the Senate is a little bit like school hall monitors - they can't actually discipline you, but they can tell on you if you're out taking a piss when you should be in class, and they wear their badges of "honor" with a smugness that you just want to wipe off their faces. And let's face it, no one respects the hall monitors - they dislike them and pity them for sucking up to the school administration.

1. Duchess of Zeon is the most prominent pompous/annoying Senator, but there are several others (none stick out at the moment and I don't have enough invested to go look them up) who are also especially pompous and arrogant about being Senators. The several dozen punishment or ban threads she started in the Senate in the past year, and the fanclub that she has among some Senators, is the main reason she sticks in my mind. With that said, I personally find Duchess incredibly entertaining, and I don't want her to go anywhere; I just don't want her to be given any formal authority, because that would be scary.
2. No idea
3. There are only a handful of posters on the board that I "dislike," insofar as their online persona/posting really annoys me and I frequently find myself disagreeing with them (usually with some level of glee). Duchess is the only one of those who is a Senator, and even then, I tend to simply avoid threads she's involved in rather than start a ruckus, and like I said before, the drama she creates is pretty entertaining.

Coyote, even if you all "fix" the Senate, we're still stuck with the problem of ineffective and insufficient moderation, which is the real issue. The Senate may be annoying in its self-importance and pompousness, but you all do serve a useful purpose in giving the rest of the board a wonderful target to sling mud at.

[Ender]

And the calling-out has begun. Allow me to try and head this off at the pass. From the PMs I received after my request to hear views, the fact that Marina is strongly seen as a bad example of what the Senate is supposed to be isn't a surprise. Ok, most people see her as a power tripping bitch, a point of view her first page post doesn't do much to dissuade. Got it. Message received. Understood. Et cetera.

Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?

[JointStrikeFighter]

And the calling-out has begun. Allow me to try and head this off at the pass. From the PMs I received after my request to hear views, the fact that Marina is strongly seen as a bad example of what the Senate is supposed to be isn't a surprise. Ok, most people see her as a power tripping bitch, a point of view her first page post doesn't do much to dissuade. Got it. Message received. Understood. Et cetera.

Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?

Stripping Marina of her senatorial status would go a good ways towards fixing the issue IMHO.

EDIT: To make sense.

[thejester]

Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?

Get rid of the Senate. It serves no purpose other than to inflate the egos of a few who are part of it and its actual responsibilities could be handled easily by an expanded moderation staff and simple popular submission.

[Dark Hellion]

Perhaps we need to point fingers? A lot of issues exist that boil under the surface and shit up threads because someone can't bring it to tell someone else that they think they are a jerk. Disliking people isn't bad. You can dislike posters without having to disrespect them, and you can even dislike posters while thinking they are good posters.

Bad blood is a huge issue on the board. We all know it. Sweeping it under the rug obviously isn't working. How we could do this without it becoming a giant shitstorm is anyone's guess, but saying that we understand that certain posters are disliked isn't a solution either.

As for Mr. Wong's absence, I have to wonder whether or not he is simply waiting to see if us children can figure out how to get along or if he has to come in a bust our heads.

[Ender]

Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?

Get rid of the Senate. It serves no purpose other than to inflate the egos of a few who are part of it and its actual responsibilities could be handled easily by an expanded moderation staff and simple popular submission.

Deleting the senate does not magically inflate the size, coverage, and quality of the moderation staff.

Perhaps we need to point fingers? A lot of issues exist that boil under the surface and shit up threads because someone can't bring it to tell someone else that they think they are a jerk. Disliking people isn't bad. You can dislike posters without having to disrespect them, and you can even dislike posters while thinking they are good posters.

Bad blood is a huge issue on the board. We all know it. Sweeping it under the rug obviously isn't working. How we could do this without it becoming a giant shitstorm is anyone's guess, but saying that we understand that certain posters are disliked isn't a solution either.

Except that when these things turn into a raging shit fest of everyone blasting over perceived personal slights that most of the offenders didn't know were personal slights nothing gets done. Part of the purpose of the House of Commons was to expand the ability to come up with solutions. If you want to tear into each other that is your call, but this isn't the proper venue. This forum is meant to house productive discourse to improve the board, and as dictated by the mods OT rules apply.

And honestly I don't think venting is effective. You yell and scream and then.... yeah. It makes you feel a little bit better but ultimately doesn't accomplish anything. My best recommendation to get past bad blood is get over it. They are pixels on a screen man, let it go. I haven't always lived up to it, but my failure doesn't mean it is wrong. Hakuna Matata.

[thejester]

Deleting the senate does not magically inflate the size, coverage, and quality of the moderation staff.

Which is why I said an 'expanded moderation staff.' I would have thought there was a fair consensus by now that more moderators are needed.

[Big Phil]

And the calling-out has begun. Allow me to try and head this off at the pass. From the PMs I received after my request to hear views, the fact that Marina is strongly seen as a bad example of what the Senate is supposed to be isn't a surprise. Ok, most people see her as a power tripping bitch, a point of view her first page post doesn't do much to dissuade. Got it. Message received. Understood. Et cetera.

And yet she still remains a Senator. What does that say about the effectiveness of the Senate that someone can behave the way she does and still remain a Senator? And in terms of pointing fingers, sure I highlighted her as one of the most prominent and vocal Senators who I think are arrogant/pompous/ridiculous, but at the end of the day what else should we expect from senators? They have no power, no authority, no particular reason for being, and yet, as a group, you all preen and tell each other how awesome you all are, and never seem to police your own. Senators either have to leave on their own or have a huge blow up and then leave (Wayne Poe being the obvious example), but once you become a senator, you're a senator for life.

Bear in mind, I'm not one of those calling for Duchess' head or that she be stripped of her Senatorial status. She's passionate about some things, ridiculous and dramatic about others, but is usually an interesting poster who generates emotions and garners reactions from others on the board, which I think is a good thing. As I said in a different thread, that she can behave the way she does, and receive praise, accolades, and support for a moderator position (from other senators) speaks loudly about the problems with the board.

Let me reiterate: I do NOT believe Duchess of Zeon is a or the problem with the board, and I find her a highly entertaining poster, although I doubt there's anything she and I agree about. The problem is the lack of effective or sufficient moderation, one that allows certain behaviors to procreate.

Frankly, I just think the entire concept of the Senate is just silly, and if this board continues to have something like the Senate in place, then everyone else will continue to make fun of you all as you continue to run around like chickens with your heads cut off, accomplishing very little but racking up the post count.

Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?

Umm... does an obvious solution to ineffective an insufficient moderation not jump out at you? How about Mike appoint some new moderators - hell, pull from the senators, I really don't care - and have them actually moderate? What other "solutions" are you looking for?

Frankly, thejester's suggestion to get rid of the senate may not be something you (the senate) wants to hear, but he has a point. You all don't really serve a purpose - whatever Rob Wilson's original vision was for the senate, it's completely gone now, and you've simply become the focus of people's irritation because of the (overall) behavior of senators.